Reply to: Bullet trains coming to the UK

[d000hg]

London - Glasgow or Edinburgh > 400 miles.
Channel Tunnel - Aberdeen > 500 miles
Plymouth - Inverness > 600 miles.

This country is plenty big enough for high speed trains.

The point I made was trains don't reach 125 'low speeds' on those journeys for much of the time. The London-Newcastle express only stops about 3 times en route and takes 3 hours to travel <300 miles.

Also, the number of people doing those journeys is few so don't justify a super-fast train network. Flying is better.

[Robinho]

But if it doesn't, then it is subsidised

Yes, i've already explained this concept to 2 idiots in this thread, it's not necessary to explain it to me.

[Ignis Fatuus]

125 is just fine in a country this size.

London - Glasgow or Edinburgh > 400 miles.
Channel Tunnel - Aberdeen > 500 miles
Plymouth - Inverness > 600 miles.

This country is plenty big enough for high speed trains.

Any other country with pretensions to a rail network (from France to Canada) sees the "peripheral regions" as places to bind to the metropolis with communication links, not to leave out of transport planning because they are not central.

[BA to the Stars]

I suspect fuel levy more than covers the road infrastrutuce.

Of course if you can use the power of the state to nationalise private rail networks, eveything is cheap.

But if it doesn't, then it is subsidised

[Robinho]

I suspect fuel levy more than covers the road infrastrutuce.

Of course if you can use the power of the state to nationalise private rail networks, eveything is cheap.

The past is the past though, all we care about is the future, and thus there is no need to balance things up.

Again, if lack of subsidies caused gridlock the trains would gain a competitive advantage. There is literally no need to subsidise anything, it simply encourages a misallocation of resources.

[BA to the Stars]

Jesus Christ guys. Road taxes and fuel duty are paid by motorists and are used to maintain the road system. This is no a subsidy, it is a usage fee. The subsidies trains receive are not from taxes raised by the existence of trains, they are from taxes that you or me pay when we do a contract or, or from VAT etc. So rails are being subsidised whereas roads are not.

Can you confirm that everything spent of roads is generated by road taxes and fuel duty - if not then anything additional spent out of the tax pot will be a subsidy.

When all the motorways were built from the 1960's onwards, the taxes generated by motorists were insufficient to cover all the costs, therefore the infrastructure we use now was subsidised. The majority of the rail network was built prior to nationalisation and therefore funded privately. Therefore the majority of the rail infrastructure was not subsidised.

Perhaps it is only right that things are being balanced up - besides imagine the gridlock that would be caused by a non-subsidised rail network

[Robinho]

So roads are 100% subsidised then... whereas trains are only partly subsidised (it's tax they use to make up the defecit from ticket prices)

Firstly, roads are paid for by tax and duties.

Jesus Christ guys. Road taxes and fuel duty are paid by motorists and are used to maintain the road system. This is no a subsidy, it is a usage fee. The subsidies trains receive are not from taxes raised by the existence of trains, they are from taxes that you or me pay when we do a contract or, or from VAT etc. So rails are being subsidised whereas roads are not.

Secondly, if you go in first class on a train from London to Paris, Hamburg to Frankfurt, Amsterdam to Cologne etc, you'll notice lots of people sitting there working on their laptops, making phone calls etc etc. They're working. Some of them are self employed, and we can assume they'll have done the sums. Some of them are employees, and you seem to assume that their bosses are idiots for paying the train fares. In other words, profits are being made, taxes are being paid, and some of those taxes are put back into the railways. It seems to work for the Germans at least.

As i have already explained, if people can be productive whilst using a train, then they should be happy to pay more for using it, instead of that more coming from the government.

[TimberWolf]

I don't suppose Japan can send some drivers over too:

London 2012 Olympics: Train drivers to stage three days of strikes during Games | Mail Online

Mind you a squaddie could drive a train after two minutes instruction no doubt. And kerchinnnnggg if he's paid the train driver's wage.

[stek]

Bring back the Fairey Rotodyne! Lands on an extremely large sixpence!

[AtW]

I thought they were Maglev systems?

Only China can afford it with all that Western money it earns.

[d000hg]

We don't subsidise the roads. The costs are covered by road tax and petrol duty to my knowledge.

So roads are 100% subsidised then... whereas trains are only partly subsidised (it's tax they use to make up the defecit from ticket prices)

[Mich the Tester]

Plus getting from A to B by rail requires the entire route from A to B to be covered in rails, bridges, tunnels, maintenance workers, etc whereas with air, only points A and B need infrastructure.

Yep yep. OK, so I'm running out of arguments so it's time for the geek argument. High speed trains are cool.

[TimberWolf]

Yep, but air transport is arguably subsidised as the airlines don't pay tax on fuel. Plus, high speed trains aren't about getting you to the Costa del Chav cheaply to spend 2 weeks getting plastered on Bacardi Breezers and shagging syphilitic Sharons from Swindon. The trains are more often used for work and business travel.

Plus getting from A to B by rail requires the entire route from A to B to be covered in rails, bridges, tunnels, maintenance workers, etc whereas with air, only points A and B need infrastructure.

[Mich the Tester]

I sometimes wonder about the calculations that say rail is more efficient than air, and whether they've taken infrastructure costs and maintenance into account, rather than just the fuel used to get from A to B. Prices just don't seem to stack up to the claims. At least when I compare budget airline prices of getting me to the Med for £50 return compared to the hundreds of pounds it would cost by rail. And that's comparing rail to a mode of transport that isn't subsidised and makes a profit on top.

Yep, but air transport is arguably subsidised as the airlines don't pay tax on fuel. Plus, high speed trains aren't about getting you to the Costa del Chav cheaply to spend 2 weeks getting plastered on Bacardi Breezers and shagging syphilitic Sharons from Swindon. The trains are more often used for work and business travel.

[TimberWolf]

I sometimes wonder about the calculations that say rail is more efficient than air, and whether they've taken infrastructure costs and maintenance into account, rather than just the fuel used to get from A to B. Prices just don't seem to stack up to the claims. At least when I compare budget airline prices of getting me to the Med for £50 return compared to the hundreds of pounds it would cost by rail. And that's comparing rail to a mode of transport that isn't subsidised and makes a profit on top.